By Linda P. Case

Menu

personality

Mike and I and our dogs just returned from a week in Florida at a beach community that prides itself on its dog-friendliness. We met our friends Bob and Karen from Virginia, who brought their two Labs, Gus and Sally.

It was an amazing week. We spent hours with the dogs walking the beach, watching shorebirds and dolphins, hiking local trails, and visiting a nearby island preserve that is home to a pair of endangered Red Wolves (no sighting of those, but Bob and Mike did see a Bobcat while out cycling one afternoon). A perfect winter get-away for all of us.

WALKING THE BEACH WITH TWO GOLDENS, TWO LABS, A TOLLER AND A BRITTANY.

The Dogs: Our four dogs included Chippy (Toller), Vincent (Brittany), and Alice and Cooper (Golden Retrievers). Ally and Cooper are field-bred, from Jackie Mertens of Topbrass Retrievers. We have a 30-year history with Jackie’s dogs and love their athleticism, spirit, and boundless exuberance. They fit with our lifestyle and are a joy to live with and to train. Karen’s two Labs are also from field lines. Sally comes from Cresthill Kennels and Gus from Southland Kennels. Like us, Karen and Bob are active folks who spend a lot of time outdoors with their dogs. They have the added good fortune of living near the water and so they enjoy swimming, retrieving and boating regularly with their dogs.

Field-bred? As many readers know, the Golden Retriever and Labrador Retriever are closely related breeds that were originally created to aid hunters by retrieving game – most commonly water fowl. As a result, they are highly active dogs that love to swim and to retrieve. As the general story goes, both breeds experienced an increase in popularity as family pets during the 1970’s. Because the attributes of a family companion are not always in line with the behaviors one seeks in a hunting dog, the breeds began to experience a divergence in selection criteria, with some dogs bred for their hunting ability and others for conformation and a more easy-going temperament. Over several generations, this resulted in two distinct types within each breed. Although there is certainly overlap and some purposeful outcrossing between the two types, the term field-bred refers to dogs born within pedigree lines that are selected specifically for hunting ability, while conformation/pet refers to those selected for conformation and suitability as family companions.

Do field-bred dogs behave similarly across breeds? Karen and I had many great dog training conversations during our time together. One topic that interested us was the similarities and differences that we observed between field-bred Labs (her dogs) and field-bred Goldens (my dogs). Similarities included a love of retrieving and apparently inexhaustible energy level. All four dogs are intensely focused on retrieving and will chase toys and bumpers until the sun goes down (and comes back up again). Similarly, all are highly active (an understatement). Alice is known for “orbiting” – circling around us in wide arcs, veering off on each loop to splash through the surf. A typical 5-mile hike for us meant at least 10 miles for Ally. Similarly, Gus only slowed down when he fell asleep in his crate at the end of the day and Sally clearly has no understanding of the statement “this is your final retrieve“.

What about differences? A major difference that we observed, and something that will not surprise Lab folks, is that Karen’s dogs were more physically robust than my Goldens. While my guys love to chase and wrestle as they play, the Lab version of this involves a lot more body-slamming and chest-bumping (a play style that Alice made abundantly clear to Gus that she had no interest in participating in).

These were just a few observations from our dog days on the beach. And of course, they may simply reflect similarities and differences of our four individual dogs. This was an “n of 2” for each breed, after all. Hardly a representative sample.

“Is there any research that compares the behavior of Golden Retrievers and Labrador Retrievers?”

Well yes Virginia, as a matter of fact, there is.

In 2016, a team of behavioral geneticists led by Dr. Pers Jensen at Linköping University in Sweden compared Dog Mentality Assessment (DMA) test scores of Labrador and Golden Retrievers (1). The DMA is a standardized and validated behavior profile that is administered by the Swedish Working Dog Club. The researchers’ objectives were to examine behavioral differences between field and conformation/pet lines of Golden retrievers and Labrador Retrievers. They hypothesized that because selection criteria were the same, that the behaviors of field-bred dogs in each breed would be similar. They collected DMA scores and pedigrees for 902 Golden Retrievers (204 field dogs and 698 conformation/pet dogs) and for 1672 Labrador Retrievers (1023 and 649). A statistical test called Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to identify a set of six primary behavior categories: curiosity, play interest, chase proneness, social curiosity, social greeting and threat display. Results were compared between both breeds and breed types, and pedigrees were used to compute heritability estimates for the behavior categories.

Results: Although the hypothesis was that similar selection criteria (hunting ability) would result in similar behavior patterns in Labrador and Golden Retrievers (two closely related breeds), the researchers actually found several significant differences between field-bred Goldens and Labs:

Labradors vs. Goldens: When compared overall (combining types), Labrador Retrievers scored higher in curiosity, play interest and threat display compared with Golden Retrievers. Golden Retrievers, on the other hand, scored higher in chase behavior, social curiosity and social greeting.

Field-bred vs. Conformation/pet: Within-breed comparisons showed that field-bred dogs scored higher in playfulness than their non-field cohorts in both Goldens and Labs. Other than this similarity however, there were several breed-specific differences (statistically speaking, this is called an interaction effect of breed and type).

Field-bred Labrador Retrievers were less socially curious and less interested in social greeting than their conformation and pet-bred counterparts. These results are in agreement with a 2014 study of hunting Labs (2).

In contrast, field-bred Golden Retrievers were more curious and more likely to show social greeting behavior than their conformation/pet cohorts. Field-bred Goldens also had a stronger chase (retrieve) response than conformation/pet Goldens.

Heritability estimates: Analysis reflected substantial (moderate to high) genetic influence on the behavioral traits that were measured, in both breeds. However, results suggest that the genetic influences (called genetic architecture) underlying hunting ability in Labs vs. Goldens may be different.

Despite similar genetic origins and intense selection for the same type of work (retrieving birds), field-bred Labradors and Goldens demonstrate distinct behavioral differences. Most notably, field Goldens seem to be more highly social and more socially curious than other types of Goldens, while field-bred Labradors do not demonstrate this enhanced sociability. Equally striking is the evidence that the set of genes in Goldens and Labs that influence hunting ability are not identical and suggested different selective pressures and underlying genetic influences in the two breeds.

Take Away for Dog Folks

These results provide some helpful information to trainers, veterinarians and other pet professionals who regularly advise their clients regarding breed selection. First (and I know this is a no-brainer for those of you who live with these breeds)……a Golden is not a Labrador (and vice versa)……. Second, a field Golden/Lab is not a conformation Golden/Lab (also obvious)…… And finally, a field-bred Golden is also not a field-bred Lab (less obvious). Even though field-bred Golden retrievers and Labrador Retrievers have been intensely selected for the exact same job over many generations, they still turn out, well, different (ain’t nature something?).

Practically speaking, a field-bred Labrador Retriever should be expected to be highly focused (i.e. less socially curious) and intensely playful (remember – they are the rough-and-tumble guys), and may have a higher propensity to threat responses than a Golden Retriever. And, if you go for the field-bred Golden type, expect a social butterfly who zips around at 100-miles-an-hour (Ally would be happy to demonstrate).

ALLY DOES EVERYTHING FAST. INCLUDING CANNON-BALLING HER BROTHERS.

Most importantly, if you are considering one of these breeds (or types), find and trust a breeder with experience who knows his/her lines. The current research suggests that the behavior traits that were measured in the Goldens and Labs were moderately to highly heritable. A reputable breeder who knows her pedigrees is also going to understand how the temperaments and behavior of her dogs carry from one generation to the next and will advise her puppy buyers accordingly. For me personally, I am thankful for having met Jackie and her co-breeder, Paige, who know their Topbrass Goldens inside and out and who over the years have allowed us to have so many amazing dogs share their lives with us.

We have a new puppy in the house. Alice is her name. She’s cute. Really cute.

THIS IS ALLY (WHEN SHE WAS JUST SMALL)

Of course, it is possible that I am a bit biased…….(nah…..she really is adorable, even now at 4 months….).

STILL CUTE

During the first few weeks that Ally was with our family, we could not go walking at our local park without being waylaid by other walkers who would swoop in (often without asking….sigh….) to meet the little puppy, hug the little puppy, and play with the little puppy. These interactions were replete with the high squeaky voice, nonsense words, and scrunched up kissy face that we all know (and sorta don’t love). Ally absorbs all of this attention like the little canine diva she is (though, she says that sometimes she would rather go chasing rabbits).

During these interludes, our three adult boys, Cooper, Chippy and Vinny, quietly offer sit-stays and hope to catch a bit of the fall-out. However, while handsome, friendly, and oh-so-smart, their obvious adult status just does not pull the same emotional heartstrings as Ally’s little puppy face seems to do.

HEY, SHARE A BIT OF THAT LOVIN’ HERE PLEASE.

Go ask Alice: So, I asked Alice if she knew why people on the trail swoon over her whilst ignoring her equally wonderful brothers. I thought she would know. She said without hesitation that it is because of her unbearable puppy cuteness (she added that all of the attention does tend to make her feel 10 feet tall).

Puppy narcissism aside, she is quite right. Research tells us so.

We like baby animals: Konrad Lorenz first explained this phenomenon using a concept that he termed “Kindchenschema”. This refers to a set of universal physical attributes of baby mammals that trigger unconscious affiliative (loving) and care-taking responses in adults. These features include large eyes, a proportionately large and domed skull, shortened limbs and overall “pudgy features”. Following Lorenz, the theory that adult humans are naturally drawn to baby mammals has been studied in multiple variants, including with our favorite animal companion, the dog. For example, there is evidence that the infantilism that we see in toy breeds and in dogs with a brachycephalic (smushed nose) facial structure naturally mimic the appearance of puppies and so are highly attractive to many people (1,2). Other baby animal features that we see in some dogs such as floppy ears, pudgy bodies (natural or ahem, acquired), and short legs may be at work creating a canine Kindchenschema as well.

However, despite what Alice thinks, we know that our attraction to dogs is not all about puppies. People are also drawn to adult dogs for a variety of reasons. Two recent research studies have identified a few additional canine attributes that seem to attract us.

We pay attention to color and ears: A study published in 2008 reported that, similar to our tendencies with other people, humans readily assign personality traits to dogs based simply on their appearance (3). However, the study did not attempt to identify specific traits that might influence these perceptions. Recently, Jamie Fratkin and Suzanne Baker at James Madison University in Texas attempted to tease out some of these traits (4). They selected two obvious features that differ among dogs; coat color (yellow vs. black) and ear type (floppy vs. prick). They manipulated the photographs of two dogs to show either a black or yellow coat color on one dog and floppy or prick (pointy) ears in the second dog. Study participants completed a questionnaire that rated each dog in terms of the Big Five personality traits; openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability. Results:Both the color of a dog’s coat and the set of a dog’s ears influenced perceptions of personality. Participants perceived dogs with a yellow coat or floppy ears to be more agreeable and emotionally stable when compared to dogs with a black coat or prick ears, respectively. In addition, a dog with a yellow coat was rated higher in conscientiousness than a dog with a black coat and a dog with prick ears was rated as more extraverted than a dog with floppy ears. (Note: the questions that were used to score conscientiousness reflect dependability and self-discipline, which could be interpreted as signifying a dog who is well-behaved and obedient). At its most basic, this set of results tell us that perceptions of a dog’s personality are influenced by coat color and ear type in the absence of other information. More specifically, there is a tendency to perceive yellow dogs who have floppy ears more favorably than black dogs with pointy ears.

It really is (mostly) about us: Julie Hecht and Alexandra Horowitz at City University and Barnard College in New York expanded upon this theme and examined the potential influence that a wide range of physical features in dogs may have upon human perceptions (5). They altered 15 different physical features in each of a series of photographs of 28 adult, mix-breed dogs. Each altered photo was then paired with its original. The targeted features fell into one of four categories: juvenile traits (increased size or spacing of eyes and size of the head), human-like traits (presence of a smile, colored irises), size/symmetry attributes, and a single feature related to domestication (piebald coloring). The changes that they made were subtle enough that people were generally unaware of the difference between the two photographs. Study participants were presented with 80 paired images and were asked to simply select which dog they “liked the best”. Results: The physical traits that most strongly influenced “liking” preferences were the presence of a smile (open mouth, relaxed and retracted commissures) and having colored eye irises. Both of these features occur in human faces and are associated with positive (friendly) emotions. In other words, we tilt towards features that dogs and humans share and that mean similar things. Several, but not all, infantile traits also enhanced a dog’s attractiveness. These included having large eyes, increased spacing between the eyes, and smaller jowls. Conversely, the study found no influencing effects of any other facial features, nor for a dog’s size, symmetry, or presence of piebald coloring.

MY SMILE AND MY DARK EYES, AT LEAST

Take Away for Dog Folks: Taken together, these studies suggest that dog features that naturally attract us include the infantile (puppy) traits of large eyes, domed skulls and floppy ears, as well as yellow coats (when compared with black, anyway). Oh yeah, and we are also attracted to dogs who look similar to friendly people – they smile a lot and their eyes appear friendly and warm. Clearly, years before this research was conducted, Disney knew all of this stuff. One needs only to take a look at Lady from the movie “Lady and the Tramp”, with her large, blue eyes, luxurious yellow coat, pert little (pushed in) puppy nose, and that lovely smile……

NO WONDER TRAMP FELL FOR HER

Why is this information important? Despite often knowing (or at least being informed of) the much greater importance of a dog’s personality and behavior as the criterion for selecting a pet, many people continue to choose a dog based upon physical appearance. (Ask any experienced shelter worker if you doubt this). People like what they like, and will choose accordingly. And, given the ubiquitous use of web sites and internet services to promote dog adoptions, the first thing that most people see of a dog or puppy who they are considering adopting is a photograph. These studies provide evidence that regardless of trying to convince adopters of the importance of meeting a dog in person, these photographs are an important influencer of adopters’ perceptions (correct or not) of canine personality. Thus shelters, rescue groups, and breeders can use this information not only when determining how to best photograph and present a dog on their websites, but also as they educate potential adopters regarding how a dog’s appearance may be subconsciously influencing them.

COME AND MEET ME IN PERSON. I AM A FRIENDLY AND LOVING BOY!

As for Alice, she says that white knights and red queens got nothin’ on her being a yellow dog with floppy ears and dark eyes. Seems she is set for life. Gotta go – Time to feed Ally…….

Everyone is familiar with that old saw about dogs looking like their owners……certainly, there are plenty of photos in this genre floating around the internet………

However, appearances aside, this common belief leads one to ask – Do dogs often behave similarly to their owners? Or more precisely, do dogs and their owners share personality traits? Recently, a group of collaborating scientists from Eotvos University’s Family Dog Project in Hungary and from the “Clever Dog Lab” in Vienna, Austria asked exactly this question (1).

SHARED PERSONALITIES?

Background information: Studies of human relationships provide quite a bit of scientific support for a hypothesis entitled the “similarity-attraction hypothesis“. Rather than the “opposites attract” theory that prevails on TV sit-coms and in romance novels, it seems that friends and romantic partners who share personality traits, communication patterns, and yes, even degree of attractiveness have reduced conflict and disagreements and are generally happier in their relationships than are folks who tend to be more dissimilar from each other. Although not completely understood, it is presumed that hanging out with someone who mirrors our own values and self-perceptions supports our world view and enhances our feelings of security. (Hmmm…..so it really IS “all about me” in relationships, after all……).

SIMILARITY-ATTRACTION HYPOTHESIS IN ACTION

Which of course begs the question…..Given that many people have strong and enduring relationships with their dogs, does the similarity-attraction hypothesis operate when we choose our canine friends?

The Study: The researchers studied a group of 389 owner and dog pairs who had lived together for at least 10 months. Pairs were approximately evenly distributed between the Clever Dog Lab (Austria) and the Family Dog Project (Hungary). The researchers presented a set of 4 hypotheses for their study that captured factors such as dogs’ perceived versus actual personality traits, the number and age of dogs living in the home, and cultural differences between owners living in Austria and those living in Hungary. The owners completed a personality questionnaire about themselves that was designed to measure the “Big Five” personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness. They also completed a modified Big Five questionnaire to describe their dog’s personality, a measuring tool that had been previously validated in dogs by another group of researchers (2). Last, both the owner’ and their dog’s personalities were assessed independently by a peer and by a family member.

Results: Overall, the researchers found statistically significant correlations between the personalities of owners and the personality traits of their dogs, both when self-reported by the owners and as reported independently by another person. Here are a few specific results that may be of interest to dog folks:

Strongest association: While all five personality traits had significant correlations between owner and dog, the strongest association was found for neuroticism (ease of becoming upset, degree of emotional stability). In other words, anxious owners tended to live with anxious dogs (and vice versa). The authors suggest that owners who are by nature more anxious may cause their dogs to become more nervous by behaving inconsistently, by being overly protective, or by failing to socialize their dogs adequately. Alternatively, the relationship may work in the opposite direction; a dog who is by nature more nervous may cause the owner to be distressed and anxious about the dog’s behavior. (It is important to remember that correlations do not imply causation – these results cannot provide evidence of the direction of these associations or even if there is a causative relationship).

HOW DO NERVOUS OWNERS PREPARE?

Projection? The study’s results also showed that, contrary to popular belief (usually of non-dog folks), the similarities between owner and dog personalities were not the result of simple projection of the owner’s self-perception onto his or her dog (for example, “I think of myself as an open and outgoing extrovert; therefore, my dog is also the life of the party!”). Both family member and peer ratings supported the significant correlations that were found between owner and dog personality traits.

Differences between single and multiple-dog homes: Perhaps one of the most interesting results of this study had to do with comparisons between single and multiple dog homes and the order in which dogs were acquired. When an owner lived with two or more dogs, the similarity patterns between owners and the dogs complemented one another. For example, one dog might share a similar extraversion score with his owner, while the second dog’s openness score positively correlated with her owner’s score. The researchers speculated that these differences may reflect specific roles that each dog plays in the home, different reasons for obtaining the second or third dog, or even acquired differences as the dogs each develop their place in the family structure.

Take Away for Dog Folks:This study suggests that owners may often share one or more personality traits with their dogs, and that such observations reflect actual similarities rather than wishful thinking or the manifestation of popular folklore. The study could not tell us however, how these similarities come about. The most obvious explanation is that people consciously or subconsciously select a breed or an individual dog who matches their own personality in one or more ways. (Indeed, there is some evidence in the literature to support this). Alternatively, a dog’s personality may converge with the traits of his owner over time as owner and dog learn from each other and develop a compatible lifestyle. However, the data from this study found no correlation between the length of ownership and degree of personality similarities, which suggests that this was not the case. Regardless of the underlying cause, trainers, behaviorists and other dog professionals who work with dog-owner pairs can use this information as we encourage our clients to recognize and capitalize upon all of the positive traits in their dogs. Emphasizing those traits that the owner and the dog share is likely to lead to appreciation rather than disdain, seeing that we humans have a tendency to recognize many of our own personality traits in a favorable light.

For me personally, this study certainly brings new meaning to the phrase “Love me, Love my dog“. So, if you profess to care about me, then caring about my dogs should come quite easily for you as well, since chances are, we are a lot alike! 🙂